Doweld • (2253) Conserve Crassinervia
TAXON 62 (6) • December 2013: 1351–1353
(2253) Proposal to conserve the name Crassinervia against Dolerophyllum (fossil Gymnospermae: Vojnovskyales) Alexander B. Doweld National Institute of Carpology (Gaertnerian Institution), 21 Konenkowa Street, 127560, Moscow, Russian Federation;
[email protected],
[email protected]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12705/626.38 (2253)
(=)
Crassinervia Neuburg in Trudy Vsesoyuzn. Geol.-Razv. Objed. S.S.S.R. 348: 37. 11 Dec 1934, nom. cons. prop. Typus: C. kuznetskiensis (Chachlov) Neuburg (Cardiopteris kuznetskiensis Chachlov). Dolerophyllum Saporta in Compt. Rend. Hebd. Séances Acad. Sci. 86: 804. 1 Apr 1878, nom. rej. prop.
Typus (vide Seward, Foss. Pl. 3: 132. 1917): Dolerophyllum goeppertii (Eichw.) Saporta (‘goepperti ’) (Noeggerathia goeppertii Eichw. (‘goepperti ’)). When he established Dolerophyllum as a distinct genus on the fragmentary remnants of leaves of his gymnospermous group
Version of Record (identical to print version).
1351
Doweld • (2253) Conserve Crassinervia
TAXON 62 (6) • December 2013: 1351–1353
‘Subconiferae’, Saporta (l.c.) discussed mainly materials from Bohemia previously described as Noeggerathia cyclopteroides Göpp. (in Palaeontographica 12: 157. 1864), which he erroneously thought to be conspecific with the Uralian species, Noeggerathia goeppertii Eichw. (Lethaea Ross. 1: 253. 1 Nov 1855 (‘goepperti ’)). In a summary synopsis of the ginkgoid fossil foliage Saporta (l.c.: 872. 8 Apr 1878) formally recognized only one species, N. goeppertii, in the genus Dolerophyllum, and hence a new monotypic genus formally appeared in the systematic palaeobotany, consisting of the mixture of fossil foliage from two distinct palaeofloristic provinces of Upper Palaeozoic (Carboniferous-Permian) palaeoflora of Angarida (Siberia) and Westphalian province of Laurussia (Europe). Despite this, as Saporta (l.c.: 802–804. 1 Apr 1878) referred in the protologue of Dolerophyllum to two validly published species names (Noeggerathia cyclopteroides, N. goeppertii) (Art. 10.3 of the ICN, McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 154. 2012), the type of the generic name must be selected from the type of one of these names (Art. 10.2). Seward (l.c.) explicitly referred to Dolerophyllum goeppertii as the “type species” and so this name applying to the Uralian species is established as the type of Dolerophyllum. Seward restricted the genus to Uralian fossil foliage, excluding European fossil forms following the doubts of older authors revising such fossil foliage. The type of Dolerophyllum, D. goeppertii (Eichw.) Saporta, was implicitly accepted after Saporta by all subsequent researchers, e.g., Andrews (in Bull. U.S. Geol. Surv. 1013: 150. 1955), Jongmans & Dijkstra (in Jongmans, Foss. Cat. Pl. 40: 1149. 1960) and Doubinger & al. (in Mém. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. 164: 240. 1995), who mainly neglected the difference between Angaridean gymnosperm leaf scales (of the type) and Laurussian pteridosperm pinnules and continued unthinkingly to use the older, ill-defined morphogenus. Later Saporta (in Saporta & Marion, Évol. Règn. Vég., Phan. 1: 72. 1885) contributed additional nomenclatural confusion by dropping the reference to Eichwald’s species (maybe he realized the correctness of Feistmantel’s doubts?), and presented the binomial with only his own authorship, Dolerophyllum goeppertii Sap. (Noeggerathia cyclopteroides Göppert). In consequence, Dawson (in Canad. Rec. Sci. 4: 7. 1890) and Renault (Étud. Gîtes Miner, Bassin Autun Épinac, Fl. Foss. Text: 262. 1896) erroneously referred cyclopteroid pteridosperm foliage from Upper Carboniferous strata in Canada and France, and morphologically similar leaves to Dolerophyllum describing the new fossil species, D. pennsylvanicum Dawson and D. berthieri Renault respectively. Dolerophyllum finally became a very poorly defined fossil genus with representatives in both distinct palaeofloras, Laurussia and Angarida. Feistmantel (in Sitzungsber. Königl. Böhm. Ges. Wiss. Prag. 1879: 446. 1880) was the first to be very sceptical as to the presence of endemic Angaridean (Siberian) plants in the Permian palaeoflora of Europe. Solms-Laubach (Foss. Bot.: 123. 1891) critically treated the genus as “very problematical” and used by its author “for the most extravagant speculations”; he especially emphasized the lack of proofs of the organic connection of Renault’s new fossil forms (detached male organs and seed in particular) with Angaridean (Siberian) type of fossil foliage. Later, Dolerophyllum has been subjected to several critical revisions, and its Laurussian species were all re-classified into several separate genera, e.g., Neuropteris (Brongn.) Sternb., Doleropteris Grand’Eury, Dolerotheca Halle and Codonospermopteris Doweld, leaving only the Angaridean species (Seward, l.c.; Florin in Svensk Bot. Tidskr. 19: 180. 1925 & in Ark. Bot. 20A: 10. 1926; Halle in Kongl. Svenska Vetensk. Acad. Handl., ser. 3, 12(6): 42. 1352
1933). However, Dolerophyllum is used exceptionally, rarely and only in the past as a problematic fossil foliage morphogenus “sensu Saporta” (Vetter, Géol. Paléontol. Bass. Decazeville 2: 139. 1968; Doubinger & al., l.c.). For a long time Russian palaeobotanists erroneously considered the genus Dolerophyllum as originating from the Upper Carboniferous-Permian European strata, although its type D. goeppertii (Eichw.) Saporta was originated from Angarida. Dolerophyllum was never even mentioned in palaeobotanical works on the Carboniferous-Permian palaeofloras of the former U.S.S.R. until the late 1940s. Since the foliage of Noeggerathia goeppertii Eichw. (l.c.: 253, t. 18 [sphalm. ‘13’], figs. 1–3. 1 Nov 1855) was initially described and illustrated as a ‘bud’ of a Noeggerathia ‘spadix’, due to this doubtful old interpretation, both Dolerophyllum and D. goeppertii its type, were not used in Russian palaeobotanical treatises until Neuburg (in Paleontol. S.S.S.R. 12(3, 2): 239. 1948) re-interpreted them as scale leaves of extinct gymnosperms. When Neuburg (l.c.: 37. 11 Dec 1934) established a new genus of fossil plants Crassinervia for the scale leaves of Permian age from Kuznetzk Basin of Siberia [precise date of publication has been determined through date of the official state registration and receipt of the obligatory legal deposit copy of all newly published books in the former U.S.S.R. by the governmental authority, former All-Union (now Russian) Book Chamber, on 11 Dec 1934], she failed to compare them with the Dolerophyllum type of leaves. Later Neuburg (l.c.: 239. 1948) noticed a ‘similarity’ of D. goeppertii foliage with her genus Crassinervia, but she did not go so far as to formally synonymize the two genera, and therefore Dolerophyllum was never later used for Palaeozoic plants of Angarida. In later reviews on the Angarida palaeoflora (Gorelova & al. in Trudy Sibirsk. Nauchno-Issl. Inst. Geol. Geofiz. Miner. Syr. 140(1): 129. 1973; Durante in Trudy Sovm. Sov.-Mongol. Geol. Exped. 19: 270. 1976; Meyen, Fundam. Paleobot.: 192. 1987 & in Beck, Orig. Evol. Gymnosp. Pl.: 292. 1988) Dolerophyllum was also omitted to never used in regional Russian palaeobotanical literature at all. Since Crassinervia was clearly defined and circumscribed for the scale leaves of endemic Angaridean gymnosperms in the order Vojnovskyales (Neuburg in Trudy Geol. Inst. Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R. 116: 43. 1966 [‘1965’]; Meyen, Evol. Sist. Vyssh. Rast.: 64. 1992), the generic name has entered widely into Russian and Chinese systematic palaeobotany of the Permo-Carboniferous, and now the number of its species is nearly 30 (Radczenko & Schwedov in Trudy Arkt. Nauchno-Issl. Inst. 157: ad t. 13, 15. 1940; Radczenko in Markovskij, Novye Vidy Drevn. Rast. 1: 100. 1960; Gorelova in Orlov, Osnovy Paleontol. [15]: 160. 1963; Suchov in Mater. Paleontol. Stratigr. Zap. Sibiri: 95. 1959 & in Trudy Inst. Geol. Geofiz. Sibirsk. Otd. Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R. 23: 92. 1968; Tolstych in Markovskij, Novye Vidy Drevn. Rast. 2(1): 75. 1968 & Pozdnepaleoz. Fl. Tungussk.: 103. 1969; Němejc, Paleobotanika 3: 22. 1968; Gor in Trudy Nauchn.-Issl. Inst. Geol. Arkt. 147: 132. 1969; Gorelova & al., l.c.; Durante, l.c.; Sal’menova in Sal’menova & Koshkin, Stratigr. Verhnepaleoz. Fl. Sev. Pribalkhash. 101. 1990; Dou & Sun in Acta Geol. Sin. 59: 7. 1985; Gorelova & Batjaeva in Bulynnikova & Klimova, Novye Vidy Drevn. Rast. Bespozv. Sibiri: 5. 1987; Meyen, l.c. 1992). Needless to say the scale leaves of gymnospermous Vojnovskyales have nothing in common with cyclopteroid pteridospermous pinnae and pinnules (as well as pollen organs [later reclassified as Dolerotheca] and dispersed seeds) of Laurussian taxa ascribed to Dolerophyllum in error by some French palaeobotanists such as Saporta (l.c. 1885) and especially Renault (l.c.). At present,
Version of Record (identical to print version).
Doweld • (2254) Conserve Spinosisporites
TAXON 62 (6) • December 2013: 1353–1354
Dolerophyllum sensu Saporta is used rarely (Vetter, l.c.; Doubinger & al., l.c.) (vide Dijkstra & Van Amerom in Dijkstra, Foss. Cat. Pl. 89: 190. 1982), and the name fell gradually into disuse. In order not to disrupt modern palaeobotanical nomenclature by reviving the older, but never used, generic name Dolerophyllum for the scale leaves of Vojnovskyales, it is proposed to conserve Crassinervia Neuburg (1934) against its earlier heterotypic synonym, Dolerophyllum Saporta (1878).
Acknowledgements Thanks go to Serge Naugolnykh and Marina Durante for discussions. It is a pleasure to thank Valentina Bublik (Fundamental Botanical Library of the National Institute of Carpology, Moscow) for bibliographic assistance. The research is a contribution to the Systema Spermatophytorum Project of the National Institute of Carpology (Gaertnerian Institution), Moscow, and Palaeoflora Europaea Project and Palaeoflora of Russia (Palaeoflora Rossica) Project (NOM-10872).
Version of Record (identical to print version).
1353
